Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission

(2001) 115 LGERA 152; [2001] WASCA 199

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Town Planning and Development
2. › Subdivision of land
3. › Conditions of subdivision approval
4. › Power to impose condition ceding reserved land to Crown free of cost
5. › Whether condition ultra vires
6. › Whether statutory presumption against interference with vested rights limits power
7. › Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA), s 20(1)(a)
8. › Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1958 (WA), s 36
1. Town Planning and Development
2. › Subdivision of land
3. › Conditions of subdivision approval
4. › Validity of conditions
5. › Newbury test
6. › Whether condition imposed for improper purpose
7. › Whether condition fairly and reasonably related to development
8. › Whether condition Wednesbury unreasonable
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Improper purpose
4. › Onus of proof
5. › Focus on purpose of decision-maker not purpose of condition
6. › Presumption of regularity
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Presumption against interference with vested rights
3. › Whether presumption applies to contingent or inchoate statutory right to compensation
4. › Whether presumption limits scope of statutory power to impose subdivision conditions

Quick Take

The Commission has power under s 20(1)(a) of the TPD Act to impose a condition requiring ceding of land reserved under the MRS to the Crown free of cost as a condition of subdivision approval. The statutory presumption against interference with vested rights does not limit this power because the landowner receives a quid pro quo (the restored right to subdivide). A ceding condition on reserved land is not ipso facto for an improper purpose or unreasonable. However, the question whether compensation rights survive ceding where the landowner has already triggered the s 36(3)(b) entitlement remains open.